Crony Capitalism - The American Economy is Not a Free-Market Economy

reply to post by greencmp


Well looking for success Im looking at these countrys:
Norway
Finland
Sweadon
Singapore
Hongkong (It basicaly a city state with limited Chinese interferance)
Australia
Denmark
Germany

Out of intrest what countrys do you class as succesful?

crazyewok
reply to post by greencmp

 

Well looking for success Im looking at these countrys:
Norway
Finland
Sweadon
Singapore
Hongkong (It basicaly a city state with limited Chinese interferance)
Australia
Denmark
Germany

Out of intrest what countrys do you class as succesful?

Of the group, I would say that Singapore and Hongkong are the closest though, none of them are necessarily pure and unadulterated free markets.

reply to post by greencmp


I would say Hong Kong and Singapore the prove that free markets can work. They still find someway to provide for the poor but they are alot more "free" than say the USA or UK and are very wealthy states.

But I would also say Norway, Demark and Sweadon show a Sociliced system can work too.
They have a pretty content population, low debt, and brilliant public services and also hardly tyranical and brutal.

Its not about either being right or wrong but rather right implimentation.

I think there is room for both systems in the world and its up to the people to choose what they want. At some point I will probably ditch the UK for Norway.

What why I think the USA should be run more on the state level. Let some states adopt a more soclised way (as long as its in a responsible way like Norway ) and let others adopt a more free market way (again as long as it in a responsible manner), just leave it up to the people in those states to decide. That way everbodys happy.

To but it another way I think the goal is human happyness and sustainablity. And I think there is more than one way to reach that goal and diffrent people will always prefer diffrent ways. And things I think would work best if the world accomadates that.

Actualy Im forgetiing a very good country I have been too that is very free market and thats Bahamas and I have to say I was very impressed. Even the poor were doing very well for themselfs it seemed. Infact the poor and working class seem to be doing a damed sight better than in the UK and USA.

So I think we can say there are some good examples of both ways working.[

In fact the obesrvation I made yesterday is that the country that make capitlism work and the ones that make soclism work have 1 thing in common and thats low population........

Im thinking that what screws country up is not so much what system they choose but rather the size of the goverment.

A big overbearing fedral goverment= Faluire were as a small country = Success.

Maybe what the USA needs is too go back to each state running itself howit sees fit under the terms of the consitution?

reply to post by greencmp


In order for true free market capitalism to work, every country outside ours would also have to have true free market capitalism if we are going to be involved with trade with them.

Otherwise we should stop the flow of immigration and seal up our borders for it to work in this country.

As it is now, those that have beneffited with sending jobs to China have communism to thank for it where the chinese government still controls 80% of the country and the workers have no say in free market choices.

jacobe001


In order for true free market capitalism to work, every country outside ours would also have to have true free market capitalism if we are going to be involved with trade with them.

Absolute rubbish!

Freemarket countrys like Singapore, Hongkong and Bahamas trade ok with socialist country like Norway, Swedon ect and Both provide very high standards of living which means very few from either of those countrys move out.

reply to post by crazyewok


How intertwined our they though?
At what point would you consider the markets between them one or the other or a hybrid of both if trade between them increased so much that policies from both systems effected each other?

reply to post by greencmp


The only way that one could have a free market is if the mega corporations were dismantled.

Kraft brands/products just in the US--Altoids, Bird's Eye, Boboli, Breyers, Budget Gourmet, California Pizza Kitchen, Celestial Seasonings, Chiffon, Cream of Wheat, Del Monte, DiGiorno, Entenmann's, Farlyey's & Sathers, Frusen Gladje, Lender's, Life Savers, Milk Bone, Minute Rice, Oroweat, Parkay, Post Cereals, Sealtest, Shredded Wheat, South Beach Living, Stella D'Oro, Tombstone, Trolli US, Velveeta, Veryfine, Wheat Thins, Capri Sun, Honey Maid, Jet-Puffed Marshmallows, Jell-O, Maxwell House, Philadelphia, Planters, Bakers, Cool Whip, Cracker Barrel, Knudsen's, Kool Aid, Country Time, Crystal Light, Gevalia Kaffe, Mio, Grey Poupon, Claussen, Taco Bell, A1, Shake N Bake, Stove Top, Corn Nuts, Sure Jell *some under private investor control or venture with another large group, Nabisco.

Nabisco (branded as Kraft in other countries)--100 Calorie Packs, Arrowroot, Beddar Cheddars, Cameo, Chips Ahoy!, Chocolate Wafers, Dad's Cookie, Doo Dads, Fudgee-O Cookies, Triscuit, Bacon Dippers, In a Biskit, Lorna Doone, Mallomars, Fig Newtons, Nutter Butter, Nilla, Honey Maid, Oreo, Premium Saltines, Ritz, Teddy Grahams, Wheat Thins, Rice Thins, SnackWells, Sports, Kool Stuf, Pecanz, Zu Zu Ginger,

ConAgra brands/products--Act II, Alexia, Banquet, Blue Bonnet, Chef Boyardee, Chiffon, Chun King, Crunch n Munch, David Sunflower, Dennison's, Eagle Mills, Egg Beaters, Fernando's, Fiddle Faddle, Fleischmann's, Gebhardt, Gulden's, Healthy Choice, Hebrew National, Hunts, Jiffy Pop, Kids Cuisine, La Choy, Lamb Weston, Light Life, Luck's, Manwich, Marie Callender's, Orville Reddenbacher, Parkay, PAM, Peter Pan, Pogo, Poppycock, Reddiwhip, Ro-tel, Rosarita, Slim Jim, Swiss Miss, Van Camp's, Wesson, Wolf's Chili, Ranch Style Beans, Penrose, Bertolli, PF Changs, Banquet--Most Store brands.

Kelloggs--Eggo, Cinnabon, Famous Amos, Pringles, Sunshine Biscuits, Keebler, Mother's Cookies, Carr's, Bear Naked, Fruity Snacks, 22 different brands of cereal and 5 different breakfast bars, Kellogg's dominates roughly 50% of your cold breakfast aisle in the grocery stores and quite possibly the snack aisle, too, as they are the 2nd largest snack food maker often competing with either itself or General Mills.

General Mills--The other near 50% of the cold breakfast aisle. Betty Crocker, Bisquick, Gold Medal Flour, Pillsbury, Cascadian Farm, Haagen-Daz, Good Earth, Green Giant, Hamburger Helper, Macaroni Grill, Old El Paso, V. Pearl, Wanchai Ferry, Food Should Taste Good, Muir Glen, Frescarini, Totino's/Jenos, Bugles, Chex, Fiber One, Fruit Snacks, Gardetto's, Nature Valley, Progresso, Mountain High Yogurt, Yoplait.

PepsiCo--Not just a soda pop manufacturer...Quaker, Seattle's Best, Starbucks, AMP, Rockstar, SoBe, Cap'nCrunch, Kretschmer, Aunt Jemima, Cheetos, Doritos, Lays, Ruffles, Tostitos, Chester's, Cracker Jack, Fritos, Funyuns, Munchies, Rold Gold, Sunchips, Gatorade, Aquafina, Tropicana, Naked Juice, Lipton, Brisk. Alternatively, at least 50% of the soda and chip aisle of your local grocery store.

I invite you to take a walk through your grocery store and check those labels to see how many companies are actually represented. And don't be too relieved by companies such as Annie's. Even Annie doesn't own Annie's anymore-it's now majority owned by a venture capital firm that raised $100 million. Why do you think Annie's is expanding so fast? Here's how it works. A venture capital firm comes in and gets that majority interest, flooding in a lot of money in the hopes of making a new big brand; however, they are not in it for the long road. Nope. They aren't in it for the business. If you build it, they (Kraft, ConAgra, Kellogg, General Mills) will come. And they will buy it.

Food maker Annie's Inc. plans a sale of 3.5 million shares of its stock in an offering that could raise nearly $164 million, but not for the company itself. Source: www.bizjournals.com...

Free markets require competition. Competing with oneself in one's own niches does not count as competition.

PS. Knock yourself out with this site: theyrule.net...

It finds the connections between just about everything though interestingly enough, Kraft or even Nabisco aren't listed. However, Kraft spun off Mondelaz International and curiously enough a member of the board for Mondelaz and a member for the board of ConAgra are also joint board members of AIG.

It's a small world.

WhiteAlice
reply to post by greencmp

 

The only way that one could have a free market is if the mega corporations were dismantled.

I agree, the only significant state interference that I advocate is subdivision using anti-trust. It is a corrective action to repair the damage already caused by rampant state sponsorship and defense of monopolies through anti-competive regulations.

It is complicated by the fact that these mega-corporations are international in nature but, not an impossible task. It also can't actually undo the harm that has already come to pass but, it can restore a fighting chance to new competition.

jacobe001
reply to post by crazyewok

 

How intertwined our they though?
At what point would you consider the markets between them one or the other or a hybrid of both if trade between them increased so much that policies from both systems effected each other?

Buts thats the thing,

Both provide totaly diffrent services. So both co exist fine.

And isnt that a good thing?

Rather than competing both system living side by side successfully?

That way eveyone can be happy right?

reply to post by greencmp


Unfortunately, the very entity that is in charge of enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is apparently asleep at the wheel. The size of these megacorporations pretty much make the so-called "robber barons" of old look like mid-sized companies. Yet, every single time that the FTC has stepped in on the mergers and acquisitions, they have simply forced the company to divest a minor portion of itself in exchange for approval of that merger. In the case of Bell South, one of the most well-known anti-trust cases, they have been slowly reacquiring all of their FTC ordered divested portions over the years--unchecked. It's really quite phenomenal.

I know that in the oil and gas industry, Sen. Ron Wyden took on the FTC as there were numerous things occurring in the state of Oregon that seemed to be violating USC in anti-competitiveness. The end result was the destruction of numerous small businesses within the area. The ruling that the FTC had was that, although they acknowledged the redlining and more was, in fact, occurring, that this was ultimately "competition". The FTC allowed for the merger of Shell, Texaco and Chevron and also kept that fact quiet. Just about everything "out there" on these mergers is hush hush and even on the "largest oil companies in the world" lists, Shell and Chevron are listed as separate entities. Pretty despicable.

FTC should be doing their jobs instead of pandering to these interests but that's been an issue with just about every agency that is entrusted with enforcing regulations upon the world of business. FTC, SEC, FCC, and even the little Minerals Management Service have had issues with a fast spinning revolving door, looking the other way, and outright corruption. To their credit, the SEC has just recently tried to "clean house" a bit through their new revolving door policy and the MMS was split after reports of the severe corruption within it.

WhiteAlice
reply to post by greencmp

 

Unfortunately, the very entity that is in charge of enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is apparently asleep at the wheel. The size of these megacorporations pretty much make the so-called "robber barons" of old look like mid-sized companies. Yet, every single time that the FTC has stepped in on the mergers and acquisitions, they have simply forced the company to divest a minor portion of itself in exchange for approval of that merger. In the case of Bell South, one of the most well-known anti-trust cases, they have been slowly reacquiring all of their FTC ordered divested portions over the years--unchecked. It's really quite phenomenal.

I know that in the oil and gas industry, Sen. Ron Wyden took on the FTC as there were numerous things occurring in the state of Oregon that seemed to be violating USC in anti-competitiveness. The end result was the destruction of numerous small businesses within the area. The ruling that the FTC had was that, although they acknowledged the redlining and more was, in fact, occurring, that this was ultimately "competition". The FTC allowed for the merger of Shell, Texaco and Chevron and also kept that fact quiet. Just about everything "out there" on these mergers is hush hush and even on the "largest oil companies in the world" lists, Shell and Chevron are listed as separate entities. Pretty despicable.

FTC should be doing their jobs instead of pandering to these interests but that's been an issue with just about every agency that is entrusted with enforcing regulations upon the world of business. FTC, SEC, FCC, and even the little Minerals Management Service have had issues with a fast spinning revolving door, looking the other way, and outright corruption. To their credit, the SEC has just recently tried to "clean house" a bit through their new revolving door policy and the MMS was split after reports of the severe corruption within it.

Of course, all monopolies are always bad.

It is one of the biggest problems I have been considering, subdivision seems to be the only solution. I would appreciate any comments, it is the closest thing to a policy related talking point that is worth actually discussing and is not clearly defined.

reply to post by greencmp


I agree that forcing the divestment of various interests would be helpful. I also think that further mergers and acquisitions should be frozen for some of the largest entities. Of course, that doesn't assure that smaller competitors will survive as there's been some history in regards to smaller competitors refusing to sell and getting crushed like bugs in a variety of ways (ie. such as the redlining that occurred in Oregon). The FTC needs to take a more aggressive approach on both reducing megacorporation size as well as assuring that anti-competitive practices are not being legitimized by the very entity that is supposed to protect competition.

In order for our regulatory agencies to function, the revolving door absolutely needs to be shut. If you can convince an employee of an agency to engage in a specific behavior or look the other way in exchange for the promise of a high paying job in a couple years, that does not promote proper regulatory practices. It's a major problem throughout the government but, considering the events of the last few years, the primary focus has been on the SEC:
articles.washingtonpost.com...

But it definitely exists in the FTC:

Tim is a former Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, holding this position from 2001 to 2004....Since returning to private practice, Tim has represented clients before the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, the European Commission, and other agencies, both domestically and internationally. His most significant public representations include Teva in its acquisition of Cephalon, Verizon in its acquisition of MCI, Northwest Airlines in its merger with Delta Air Lines, and Exxon Mobil in various FTC matters. Source: www.kirkland.com...

The revolving door gets touchy as enforcing it basically dictates what one can do after they depart civil service. However, non-compete contracts are totally legal within the private sector. I cannot see why they shouldn't be legal for agency employees.

Just my other thought on a solution. Non-competes.

reply to post by greencmp

While I can't guarantee every outcome that you desire, I can assure you that a truly free market (not what we have now) would not allow the survival of over-leveraged badly managed (or worse) corporations to be saved with the use of tax payer dollars. They would be allowed to go bankrupt.

And the corporate executives would have walked away with all the money they stole, and the boomer retirement funds would have disappeared. The markets would have collapsed, and a huge number of people would have paid for the crimes of the corporate elites.

This is the very negative attribute of deregulation in an attempt to create a free market.

Not only do the positive attributes of an unplanned free market far exceed the record of every planned economic system but, the unavoidable negative implications of every planned economic system are even better documented.

Well, you can start proving your point by naming 1 free market economy that has done such wonderful claims.

reply to post by crazyewok


Singapore is often touted by the right and free market advocates as the closest economy to a free market economy, so lets see how they do it.

www.heritage.org...

Prudent macroeconomic policy within a stable political and legal environment has been the key to Singapore’s continuing success in maintaining one of the world’s highest levels of economic freedom. Well-secured property rights promote entrepreneurship and productivity growth. A strong tradition of minimum tolerance for corruption is institutionalized in an efficient judicial framework, strongly sustaining the rule of law.
...
However, state ownership and involvement in key sectors remain substantial. A government statutory entity, the Central Provident Fund, administers public housing, health care, and various other programs, and public debt is equal to a year’s production for the entire economy.

So, the model touted by the right as a free market in fact has very strict regulation of business, " A strong tradition of minimum tolerance for corruption is institutionalized in an efficient judicial framework, strongly sustaining the rule of law."

Let's repeat that again.

A strong tradition of minimum tolerance for corruption is institutionalized in an efficient judicial framework, strongly sustaining the rule of law.

And Singapore's debt to GDP ratio is higher than that of the US.

So the key to a free market is an evenly enforced fair set of rules.

This free market is sustained by a very strong governing body. Which is just the opposite of what everyone says is needed for a free market.

It might then be said that the U.S. was more of a free market before republicans tried to create a free market.

poet1b
reply to post by greencmp

 

While I can't guarantee every outcome that you desire, I can assure you that a truly free market (not what we have now) would not allow the survival of over-leveraged badly managed (or worse) corporations to be saved with the use of tax payer dollars. They would be allowed to go bankrupt.

And the corporate executives would have walked away with all the money they stole, and the boomer retirement funds would have disappeared. The markets would have collapsed, and a huge number of people would have paid for the crimes of the corporate elites.

This is the very negative attribute of deregulation in an attempt to create a free market.

Not only do the positive attributes of an unplanned free market far exceed the record of every planned economic system but, the unavoidable negative implications of every planned economic system are even better documented.

Well, you can start proving your point by naming 1 free market economy that has done such wonderful claims.

Are you asking me to defend crony capitalism? I can't and I won't.

The free market has raised more people out of poverty than any planned system. That makes it the best option.

reply to post by greencmp


I didn't ask you to defend crony capitalism. That is blatant deflection.

What I am asking, is for you to name one free market economy that has done the wonderful things you claim.

poet1b
reply to post by greencmp

 

I didn't ask you to defend crony capitalism. That is blatant deflection.

What I am asking, is for you to name one free market economy that has done the wonderful things you claim.

I have to admit, I guess I don't understand your question. When I refer to the success of capitalism (setting our modern crony capitalism aside), I am referring to the non-communist world in the last century and the billion or so people raised out of abject poverty.

greencmp
....it is something called cronyism or crony capitalism.

Personally, I am willing to throw the term 'capitalism' under the bus for a variety of reasons not least of which being its derogatory origins from the communists of more than a century ago.

Regardless if you call it Capitalism or Communism, as long as there
is a central authority that issues the money, you have a system that
is inherently corrupt. The problem is central planning.

I believe in free markets, and today the only free market is bitcoin.

Those of you who followed the Occupy Movement will remember one predominant theme that emerged was this idea that we need to get money out of political process. This meme was one that resonated with a lot of people. It was thought that, if we could stop Wall Street from buying our politicians, they might reform themselves and become better representatives of WE THE PEOPLE.

When you think deeply about it, you begin to realize the problem is more fundamental. While it is true that K street lobbies have undue influence in our political system, that is not the root of the problem. The large pools of Capital that sit above government is the root of the problem. With the rise of Bitcoin, people like myself have begun to ask new questions and formulate new solutions. Perhaps we need government, but do we need government issued money?

Talking about removing the money from the political process is one thing, but to separate government from money altogether is something quite different–indeed, it is revolutionary. The separation of church and State is a rather new idea in human history, and most people agree it was a step forward. With the rise of financial instruments that are both autonomous and anonymous, the question must be asked: Are we now ready for the separation of money from the State?

The separation of church and State was very controversial but it brought greater pluralism for all. America had a big role to play in that evolutionary process. After the Magna Carta was signed, men of the Enlightenment were no longer content to be ruled by Kings. Today the old oligarchs that once sat behind the king’s throne are still asserting themselves by appointing bankers into political positions once held by elected officials. What we see today is neo-feudalism where the kings have been replaced by few powerful families, each with large pools of capital. They control the political process because the control the money.

What I’m describing is called “the New World Order” and those invested in this corrupt system are pushing a Globalist agenda that forces working people the world over to comply and submit to its all-powerful will without regard to their individual rights. Yes, people complain about this open conspiracy, but they are at a loss to know what can be done about it. Perhaps the answer is a simple one: stop using State issued money.

If people the world over were to adopt various forms of crypto-currency, this would seriously reduce the power of the Super-State to control them and in time it would also render the oligarchy powerless to control the state. Then, and only then, would free people have a chance to reclaim their government and restore a Constitutional Republic that is both accountable and representative of their the best interests.

We need government and we need money, we just don’t need one controlling the other. When money controls government then the oligarchy and corporations have undue influence. When government controls money, then the political system can control the citizens. The idea of a Republic is the idea that people control the government, but in order for this to work we need to separate money and state just like we separate church and state.